Our Portable Past, EH policy/guidelines

[Paul Barford]

It took some time coming... but the long awaited "Our Portable Past" is now available on the EH website. This document defines conditions under which EH will give permission for metal-detecting work on land that it owns, or on projects that it funds.

www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Our-Portable-Past.pdf

EH policy is that consent for metal-detector use will only be given where metal artefacts are threatened with destruction and no alternative for securing in situ preservation can be achieved.

This policy was "formulated amid increasing concern for the serious negative impacts that can result from the unstructured collection and recording of material".

It states that metal-detecting will only take place within the context of properly formulated research-based fieldwork, integrated with desk-based archaeological assessment as well as other fieldwork techniques and structured retrieval of non-metal artefacts.

It also requires appropriate standards of finds location to be adopted. Finds are to be reported and published to agreed standards before (subject to landowners’ agreement) being deposited in an accredited museum.

In the document, EH also called on other organisations, landowners and individuals who are asked to give consent to metal detecting or any form of archaeological activity on their land to insist on the same conditions (i.e., this could be seen as to act as a model for all projects of this type). This policy document seems to me a useful step forward in creating a methodological framework for closer collaboration between detectorists and archaeology in the generation of usable information about the archaeological resource. How does it compare with the BAJR Guidelines?

Its just a pity that Our Portable Past took so long to publish, the 2004 Hawkshead Review (p. 4:face-thinks: refers to EH being in the "final stages" of drafting this - but then it was to go for consultation with "all interested parties" later in that year......

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

A most interesting post and reaction...

of course I do dislike 'negative' impacts, but do like the 'positive' impacts as well.

I feel that on these particular sites that are so fragile by their very nature... (I had to try and convince a developer recently - a building sticks out the ground, an archaeologiscal site is dug into the ground, but a battle is a concept over a few hours or days - transient, intangible, a single bullet or arrow could change history... the landscape, the trees, the lines of sight.... ah I could wax lyrical)

Needless to say, battlefields need protection (and justifieable protection from development, fringe develoment, planting schemes, etc etc etc... all can have a negative impact... as can a poor archaeological survey. I would in the case of battlefields urge detectorists to look at how best to deal with these sites, to balance recovery with record. I now that is already appreciated, and with BAJR documents on both battlefield archaeology (where detecting is a prime recovery resource!) and field recording. I would be happy to see a detectorist view on battlefields.

I was also happy to see that a crap article purported to be from TOny Pollard (ello mate - you owe me a pint!) was shown to be a very very very bad misquote.....

Another day another WSI…

[garybrun]

quote:"1.1
...but is not intended to cover hobby metal-detecting."
Many of us don't need to read beyond this statement, because we are only interested in hobby metal-detecting. :face-huh:[:p]

It was very good David that Tony took the time out to write a statement for the forum and to say how he had been misquoted. Tony has worked very hard and built up a respect and a very good relationship with detectorists... many of us will make sure his info gets around and that it stays that way.

Link story
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=17296682%26method=full%26siteid=66633-name_page.html



quote:I have been badly quoted out of context here and never even came close to
alluding to gangs of marauding metal detectorists. During the brief phone
interview I was as ever very supportive of metal detector groups (and have
probably been their strongest advocate within the archaeological community -
a stance which has caused me to be the butt of some criticism from fellow
archaeologists for being 'pro-detecting'). I gave plenty of positive points
but the journalist has obviously chosen to exclude these in order to get a
more inflammatory story. I have just returned from a weekend of metal
detector survey at Culloden, where I have developed an excellent
relationship with local detectorists (though where we are suffereing from
visits by a lone nighthawker). There is an international problem with the
removal of artefacts and their sale on ebay but I specifically said that the
position was improving and I regularly worked with metal detector groups to
great mutual benefit. One problem I did point out was the sale of finds from
Anglo-Zulu War sites in South Africa, which fetch very high prices and are a
subject close to my heart as I have worked on these sites. However, it would
appear that the newspaper was only interested in putting a Scottish spin on
the story. I do believe that licensing should be introduced but only in
relation to battlefields which as archaeological sites generally survive
only as scatters of metal finds in the topsoil. I have never been an
advocate of a blanket licensing scheme.

Again, in the interview I stressed that education and communication were the
key to improving relations between archaeologists and detectorists (and I
mean education from both sides!) In short, my track record of promoting the
work of metal detectorists and having them taken seriously by the
archaeological community is I think pretty strong. I am at least partly
responsible for Scottish planning archaeologists now building in metal
detector surveys as a standard part of the evaluation process and am
probably the only archaeologist in the UK to have paid a team of metal
detectorists the same rate as my archaeologists to take part in a project.
In short, I am probably as irritated about this as the members of this
discussion board. For this reason I am not going to get embroiled in debate
or argument about this as it is I who has been misrepresented here as much
as anyone else. In closing I hope that a story in a tabloid newspaper is
taken with the pinch of salt which must surely be the daily diet of its
readers. I trust that with the air cleared I can now return to the excellent
working relationship I have with my tried and trusted team of detectorists.

Dr Tony Pollard
Director
Centre for Battlefield Archaeology
University of Glasgowhttp://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

Many of us don't need to read beyond this statement, because we are only interested in hobby metal-detectingAh right. I thought we had been discussing working more closely together (I recall detectorists were complaining here and elsewhere that archaeologists were wary of working with them). Surely therefore even the "hobby detectorist" would be interested in this document and its possible implications for their own work in the field and how it relates to a wider picture.


Paul Barford

PS But I really do not see what Tony Pollard's statement about an old newspaper article has to do with the document under discussion here.
.

[JBM]

WRADA (Weston Historical Research & Detecting Association)members supplied an experienced team to help and support Tonys Pollards
investigation at the site of the Battle of Sedgemore.:D

Working with Tony and his team was a pleasure and we knitted as a team which may surprise some folk but its a fact.[8D]

The news paper article took me by surprise as we got on so well with him and Iam pleased to see that he has spoken up to try and correct any misinterpretation.:(

Although the archaeologists had their own detectors we were allowed to get on with the job in hand and we all worked as a team and soon the field was a covered in little flags showing possible location marks.[:I]:D

The whole event was such a success that he offered us another dig but getting further pass outs from home would have been a problem as it was well up country.;)

Its not easy building bridges but we are slowly getting an understanding with all interested parties and we dont need distorted press reporting to undermine the growing goodwill.Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Steve-B]

Working closer with archaeologist aside for a moment.. it is interesting to note that you have actually missed this most important sentence from your opening statement Paul:


quote:"1.1
...but is not intended to cover hobby metal-detecting."

Why is that I wonder?

I find the EH document rather pointless to be honest from a detectorists point of view, while at the same time being rather misleading.

Pointless from the fact that in my own persoanl experience when I have aided on an archaeological dig, I have always worked under the duristriction of the archaeological director of the site and would no think to do otherwise.

Misleading as the following statementis not properly quantified in my opinion and is intended to mislead landowners into not allowing hobby detectorists access to the land unless archaeological guidelines are adhered to, with a minor sentence (as quoted above) paying lip service to the fact that this does not apply to hobby detectorists....

Too late the seed has been sown....


We are not archaeologists, although there is room for better pratcice of the hobby it is entriely innapproprite to treat all detectorists as archaeologists.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

quote:it is interesting to note that you have actually missed this most important sentence from your opening statement Paul [...] Why is that I wonder? Because I gave the reference where you can read the whole document, I missed out a lot, as copying the whole thing out here was not my aim. I would contest that this is "the most important sentence". You seem to forget that this forum is not JUST for detectorists. My interest in it is the creation of a specific policy which now can be a framework for co-operation between archaeologists and (well, actually hobby, surely) metal detector users in specific joint projects on land owned by EH and EH funded projects. This was one of the themes I rather thought were close to Hosty's heart, so I thought it was appropriate to post a reference to it here. But instead of people reading it and discussing it we now have a discussion about "what Tony Pollard really said" and why I posted what I did.

As for the rest of the points you make, it seems to me that you've not read it carefully enough or understood what its about and what its purpose is (and its not what you obviously think).

Paul Barford
.

[Steve-B]

quote:You seem to forget that this forum is not JUST for detectorists.

Did you notice that you have posted in the section entitled "Understanding metal Detecting"?


quote:This policy was "formulated amid increasing concern for the serious negative impacts that can result from the unstructured collection and recording of material".

Your only purpose (as ever) is to offer a heavily slanted presentation that supports your ongoing agenda and as is blatantly obvious has nothing to do with promoting cooperation between detectorists and archaeologists...



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

I of course was well aware that I had posted this in a section of the BAJR Forum dedicated to "understanding metal detecting", its why its here and not elsewhere on the Forum....


quote:Your only purpose (as ever) is to offer a heavily slanted presentation that supports your ongoing agenda and as is blatantly obvious has nothing to do with promoting cooperation between detectorists and archaeologists...
This is getting repetative. Steve, look. The words about "unstructured collection" comes from the text of the document, and is the justification given by its authors for its creation. And yes, unstructured collection of evidence is of little use to anybody - except the mere artefact collector. You are obviously not in the mood tonight to read this text and think about it in a wider context (in terms of for example the "structured detecting" you yourself were propounding not a year ago). Its no skin off my nose if you want to treat this as some sneaky government conspiracy against "the hobby" supported only by folks with "ongoing agendas" (anti-detecting of course). I think its an interesting and useful document worthy of closer study and reflection.

Paul Barford
.

[Steve-B]

I dont think I have accused this of being some sneaky government scheme at all Paul, rather I would have liked to seen the distinction better defined between 'archaeological metal detecting' and hobby metal detecting and feel that the current format is rather misleading to the wider public....

Mr Host would you not say that is a fair concern?

I also feel that you initial presentation was slanted even further to make it appear that the main drive of the document was in relation to the whole of detecting...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[BAJR Host]

I will be rather cruel here and ask what you (plural... everyone reading that is) feel the distinction is... I see as such shades of grey... where one day an individual can be a 'hobby detectorist' the next be an 'archaeological detectorist' the next being a detectorist who is researching and detecting a site as an individual as a hobby, but in a way that would be seen from the outside as in an 'archaeological' way.

:face-huh:

Another day another WSI…

[garybrun]

that's a very good question David.... you've been taking lessons from a few people I think}:)

How much do you reckon it cost to produce such a document??
Yet they cant even make the thing clear but fill it up with "shades of grey" :face-huh:

Do you not think the truth in the matter is that EH wants to have more of a say in the PAS/CoP and had to word it this way so as not to be seen to be detracting from it!??

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Steve-B]

David I feel that the distinction lies in the fact that it is not necessarily a case that one day a detectorist may be a 'hobby' detectorist and the next an 'archaeological detectorist and the next as you say a more highly disciplined detectorist bordering on adhering to archaeological practice.

I would say that rather it is more of a case that most detctorists rarley cross the line between the different levels of detecting that you have described (although some do) and as such it is unfair to force archaeological stricture upon those that habitually practice the hobby at a 'lower' level of discipline other than to encourage that they adequately report and record their finds...

The way this has been worded could now be used to start strangling those that practice the hobby for enjoyment and leisure rather than for a more intellectual past time.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk